90 replies to this topic

[Zyllos]

I am unsure if anyone listened to the Mechs, Devs, and Beer NGN Podcast but there was an interesting bit of information that Paul (I believe) mentioned that they may be looking at:

Increased internal structure

Now, I find this an interesting development if they are indeed looking at increasing the internal structure hitpoints.

Interesingly, this does add more to the Critical Slot system, which is sorely in need of work. If it took more time to destroy a paticular section of a mech, then critical seeking weapons might make a big comeback, especially if they implement a CoF system like mentioned in Homeless Bill's thread: http://mwomercs.com/...oats-and-clans/

So, what do you guys and gals think? Would this make the game better? Sure, it's not canon but I think it's in the realm that it should be fugged to make the game more balanced and not exactly destroy the sancity of CBT.

Personally, I think this is a good idea. More survivability will mean longer matches while giving more emphasis on destroying internal equipment that destroying sections.

I hope PGI moves forward with this idea.

[redreaper]

well if Armour is doubled why not internal hit points if it hasnt been already

[Syllogy]

More survivability also means finding ways to squeeze more damage out of an Alpha strike.

[Zyllos]

redreaper, on 20 June 2013 - 07:00 AM, said:

well if Armour is doubled why not internal hit points if it hasnt been already

Maybe there is some confusion.

In CBT, let's just say the internal structure of a 50t mech can be 16 points, that means the maximum armor amount is 32 points.

In MWO, those values have been doubled, thus a 50t mech can equip 64 points of armor and has 32 points of internal structure.

I think their idea is that they are going to increase internal structure to match armor, so 64 points of armor and 64 points of internal structure.

So, to answer your question, they have already doubled internal structure.

Syllogy, on 20 June 2013 - 07:02 AM, said:

More survivability also means finding ways to squeeze more damage out of an Alpha strike.

Meaning that more survivability will lead to more alpha strikes or...?

[Jasen]

So basically... the whole critical idea is so fail, but management thinks it is so awesome, now we're going to rework internal structures to make it still suck just as bad?

Man, fire these stupid people already IGP.

[Lostdragon]

I don't see how crit seeking can ever be worth it when it is so easy to deliver 40+ damage to a specific location. Crit seeking only becomes viable when armor is gone. To equip a crit seeking weapon you must choose not to equip one that is more effective at stripping armor so it is kind of self defeating.

Unless they make some other drastic changes like giving the LBX slugs then it will still be better to strip armor then just blow out the CT since you can't crit engines. A quick kill is preferable to picking the enemy apart because it helps give your team a numbers advantage and frees you up to fight another enemy. Currently it is very rare that I intentionally don't just try to core someone and move on and I don't see this changing that.

Edited by Lostdragon, 20 June 2013 - 07:21 AM.

[Adridos]

Zyllos, on 20 June 2013 - 07:05 AM, said:

Meaning that more survivability will lead to more alpha strikes or...?

Yes. Super high damage builds will go from power overkill to necessity.

[MustrumRidcully]

I am not sure it's worth the effort, but it can help all the mechs that have to make armor sacrifices.

But, let's be honest - most people that make armor sacrifices sacrifice on the legs. And these would get a buff with such a change. And, as a hint - it's not the Jenners, Ravens, Commandos or Spiders that will rejoice about this buff...



I understand the desire to make the critical hit system more relevant, but... sometimes you could just abandon an idea that didn't work, instead of investing even more time into it.

But we know the devs are unwilling to do so... Just think of ECM. Or the boating heat penalty system. Heck, we could even say 3PV.

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 20 June 2013 - 07:21 AM.

[Homeless Bill]

I need to mull this over, but my initial reaction is that this is a good idea. The critical system needs some serious work, longer, more brutal fights are always a good thing, and damage per second might matter a little more.

[Tickdoff Tank]

You can not "critical hit" internal structure, at least not currently. You can critically hit *internal components*, such as hand/arm/foot actuators, heatsinks, mounted weapons, ammo, cockpit, gyro and such, but the structure itself is treated exactly like armor and can not take additional damage from a critical hit.

That is part of the problem with "crit seeking" weapons. If there was an in-game effect to destroying an actuator/gyro then the crit seeking might be a lot better. As it stand now the only thing a "crit seeker" can do is extra damage to a heat sink, weapon, ammo, JJ and possibly the engine.

I have not been playing too much recently (real life sucks sometimes) and I may have missed a change to the crit system, but I do try to keep current and I do not think I would have missed something so big. However, if there have been changes to the way internal structure takes critical damage, could someone please provide an explanation and a link so that I may educate myself?

[Karl Streiger]

Hm critical hit system is based on 2d6, the hit locations is based on 2d6, does anybody is able to see any mistake?

So both values are corresponding....right?

[Rattlehead NZ]

MustrumRidcully, on 20 June 2013 - 07:21 AM, said:

I am not sure it's worth the effort, but it can help all the mechs that have to make armor sacrifices.

But, let's be honest - most people that make armor sacrifices sacrifice on the legs. And these would get a buff with such a change. And, as a hint - it's not the Jenners, Ravens, Commandos or Spiders that will rejoice about this buff...



I understand the desire to make the critical hit system more relevant, but... sometimes you could just abandon an idea that didn't work, instead of investing even more time into it.

But we know the devs are unwilling to do so... Just think of ECM. Or the boating heat penalty system. Heck, we could even say 3PV.

I can see it now...

"i've taken the LT armour off that AC40 Jager!"

"Why isn't anyone shooting its side torso??"

"We have been but it just isnt dyi...."

[MustrumRidcully]

Tickdoff Tank, on 20 June 2013 - 07:25 AM, said:

You can not "critical hit" internal structure, at least not currently. You can critically hit *internal components*, such as hand/arm/foot actuators, heatsinks, mounted weapons, ammo, cockpit, gyro and such, but the structure itself is treated exactly like armor and can not take additional damage from a critical hit.

That is part of the problem with "crit seeking" weapons. If there was an in-game effect to destroying an actuator/gyro then the crit seeking might be a lot better. As it stand now the only thing a "crit seeker" can do is extra damage to a heat sink, weapon, ammo, JJ and possibly the engine.

I have not been playing too much recently (real life sucks sometimes) and I may have missed a change to the crit system, but I do try to keep current and I do not think I would have missed something so big. However, if there have been changes to the way internal structure takes critical damage, could someone please provide an explanation and a link so that I may educate myself?

When a mech takes internal damage, crits can occur, that inflict damage to components.
When we increase the amount of internal structure, that means it will take longer to go through internal structure, and that also means more crits will occur, and items will take more damage.

That means it is more likely that a mech loses an item, or multiple before he loses a complete section. It's also more likely to lose items and still stay in combat for a longer time.

Or so goes the theory. In practice, doubling structure is one extra alpha strike at best... Which means "longer" can mean "4 seconds"...

[MajorChunks]

I think that this *could* encourage a bit more DPS over alpha. If the structure is strong enough that no sane alpha can one-shot a section, then having a bit more staying power would be valuable.

If you know that it's going to take 4 shots to core your opponent, but only 2 to take off it's AC/20 arm, then you might be tempted to blow that arm off. Compared to what we have right now, which is 2 shots to core and like a half-shot to take off an arm. It's not worth the time right now. With increased (doubled?) structure, torso's become relatively stronger while limbs become relatively weaker.

That AC/40 Jager is much less scary without it's arms, but right now it's so easy to just remove a side torso that it's more efficient to just aim for that first.

[Rattlehead NZ]

MajorChunks, on 20 June 2013 - 07:32 AM, said:

I think that this *could* encourage a bit more DPS over alpha. If the structure is strong enough that no sane alpha can one-shot a section, then having a bit more staying power would be valuable.

If you know that it's going to take 4 shots to core your opponent, but only 2 to take off it's AC/20 arm, then you might be tempted to blow that arm off. Compared to what we have right now, which is 2 shots to core and like a half-shot to take off an arm. It's not worth the time right now. With increased (doubled?) structure, torso's become relatively stronger while limbs become relatively weaker.

That AC/40 Jager is much less scary without it's arms, but right now it's so easy to just remove a side torso that it's more efficient to just aim for that first.

I hope that is what the intended result would be. Imagine the CT structure on an Atlas would be like? Assaults would be scarey again and limbs would take priority .... well we hope thats how it would work anyways.

[Livewyr]

DPS would just change (more) to APM- Alphas per Minute


(yes, i know what APM means in other games)

[tenderloving]

Heat also comes more into play. If you can't guarantee a kill on your 2nd or third alpha anymore, it might make more sense to build something that has a lower alpha but more damage over time.

[Zyllos]

I think this change in tandem with mechanics to curb lots of alpha striking will add a LOT to this game.

More internal structure
More spreading of damage or less pin point damage
Better weapon balance
Tighter heat mechanics

Rattlehead NZ, on 20 June 2013 - 07:38 AM, said:

I hope that is what the intended result would be. Imagine the CT structure on an Atlas would be like? Assaults would be scarey again and limbs would take priority .... well we hope thats how it would work anyways.

The CT of a 100t mech would be somewhere around 248 points of damage. I think arms would be 192 points.

[Vercinaigh]

While i think this is a good idea....i find it funny people want assaults to be gods and squish mediums under their feet, cone of fire will do little more than make 8 atlas's the best comp in the game, period. it's not a solution it's even more broken than it is now. Just slow down ppc/gauss 15% (I'm a dedicated sniper, a very good one, i can handle that change, most prolly will start to suck, good then) and up srms/pulse weapon dps/damage. With that and this we might see more variety again.

Edited by Vercinaigh, 20 June 2013 - 08:14 AM.

[Mercules]

Occasiionally it ISN'T a choice of adding an armor stripping weapon or a crit seeking weapon. It is a choice of a 2 MGs and a ton of ammo or a Laser and a HS or two HS. With killing the mech being Alpha, Alpha... Alpha with shutdown or 1-2 Lasers if you don't want to risk the shutdown.... the Laser and HSs seem better. If it was Alpha, Alpha, Alpha with shutdown, cooldown, Alpha with Shutdown. People might be willing to toss on the MGs for the chance to strip some of the weapons/HS/Ammo out of the mech without the additional heat and/or switch over to DPS weapons after a couple initial Alphas.


It could change things up a bit.


My only concern would be if they didn't increase ammo amount again. MGs, for example, still have TT ammo per ton even though the armor is doubled and they do less damage than TT.